 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2004GM Carter - I demand an apology...but know you don't have the character to do so.
You accused me of making up my assertion about the number of people being on HAART being very low prior to 1997. I showed that the dramatic decrease in mortalities happened at least four years (1992) BEFORE HAART. FOUR FULL YEARS! I now DEMAND an apology from you. I am not a lier. YOU ARE. REFERENCE The proportion of patients receiving HAART changed significantly over the course of VATS…In January 1996, only 1% of 83 active patients were taking HAART. This proportion increased to 52% on 1 January 1997, 69% on 1 January 1998, and 79% on 1 January 1999. At the time of enrollment, 31% of patients were taking no antiretroviral medication, 44% were taking antiretroviral medication other than HAART, and 24% were taking HAART. " Murphy EL et al. Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Decreases Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Advanced HIV Disease. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jul 3;135(1):17-26 . Determinants of Survival Following HIV-1 Seroconversion After the Introduction of HAART HAART was first introduced in 1997. British researchers aimed to assess the continuing effect of this treatment on survival and progression to AIDS after HIV-1 seroconversion. The investigators used Cox models to estimate the effect of calendar year on time to AIDS and death in 22 cohorts of people from Europe, Australia, and Canada who had seroconverted. Retrospective and prospective data were used. They compared the effects of age at seroconversion, exposure category, sex, and presentation during acute HIV-1 infection pre-1997 (pre-HAART), in 1997-98 (limited use of HAART), and 1999-2001 (widespread use of HAART). REFERENCE K Porter and others, (for the CASADE Collaboration). Determinants of survival following HIV-1 seroconversion after the introduction of HAART. Lancet 362(9392): 1267-1274. October 18, 2003 I STATED: - "The decline actually began in 1992 and as late as 1997 only 17% of 'AIDS' patients in America were on HAART." http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/vkgraph7.jpg _____________ (NOTE: - This figure differs depending on source BUT ONLY by a matter of a few months. The reference above says 1% were on HAART in 1996 and 52% in 1967. Other sources put the early 1997 figure at only 17%. The bottom line is the decline happened FOUR YEARS before HAART was introduced, give or take a month or two. At the Owen Clinic of the University of California, San Diego, a study of nearly 5,000 patients who sought care for HIV showed a drop in the death rate starting in 1995, but then an upswing among those who came to the clinic after 1998. (5 ) A survey of almost 3,000 people enrolled in five US antiretroviral trials between December 1996 and December 2001 plotted a dogged doubling of the death rate every 12 months, from 3.9 percent after one year of follow-up, to 7.9 percent after two, and to 13.1 percent after three. (6) (5). Mathews W, Barber E. Rising mortality rates among recent entrants to care for HIV infection. 10th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. February 10-14, 2003. Boston. Abstract 911. (6). Reisler RB, Han C, Burman WJ, et al. Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART. JAIDS 2003;34:379-386. THE TRICK BEHIND THE DECREASE In January, 1993 the Centers for Disease Control revised and expanded the "definition" of "AIDS" to include a "non-illness" or laboratory marker (CD4 T-cell count of under 200) as an "AIDS indicator condition". The effect of this change was that it gave a tremendous boost to what otherwise would have been a DECLINING annual caseload for "AIDS", and it caused a HUGE influx of otherwise HEALTHY people into the population of "AIDS" cases. This may partly explain why "AIDS" mortality started to decline a couple years later, right BEFORE the release of new drugs. >THE TRICK BEHIND THE DECREASE > >In January, 1993 the Centers for Disease Control revised and expanded the >"definition" of "AIDS" to include a "non-illness" or laboratory marker >(CD4 T-cell count of under 200) as an "AIDS indicator condition". It's not a trick. It's a fact of HIV disease that it causes CD4 counts to decline. The chart you show and use as your evidence is pretty lame because it shows that people with HIV who developed AIDS remained HIGH through the early 90s. The BIG difference is not the change in the definition as much as it is that OIs were being better treated. Most particularly PCP prophylaxis was increasingly used, preventing PCP and thus often an AIDS diagnosis from the pre-1993 definition. So, Paul, once again, you're full of sh.t and distortion! George M. Carter >>THE TRICK BEHIND THE DECREASE >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's not a trick. Yes it was a trick - a dirty one too. > It's a fact of HIV disease that it causes CD4 counts >to decline. Many things cause CD4 counts to decline. > The BIG difference is not the change in the >definition as much as it is that OIs were being better treated. What a steaming pile of bullpucky! The case definition was changed entirely for political purposes and it was yet another disgrace upon the medical profession. >So, Paul, once again, you're full of sh.t and distortion! George Dubya Carter - you are a disgrace to the human race! Blackie snip >> It's a fact of HIV disease that it causes CD4 counts >>to decline. > >Many things cause CD4 counts to decline. Very few infections cause CD4 counts to chronically and persistently decline to zero. Perhaps you'd care to name the "things" that cause CD4 counts to decline in such a way? And there's no evidence that highly toxic and dangerous DNCB causes them to increase back to normal. snipped the usual vitriolic drivel... George M. Carter I proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt, and you know it. You are a lier, coward and complete scumbag. You called me a lier and I proved the lier is you. Apologise, damn you, apologise. >I proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt, and you know it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Apologise, damn you, apologise. You proved your an ignorant fool, but that's all you've ever been able to show in your thousands of posts to MHA. Now one more time tell me again how the number of people classified as having AIDS can have any effect on an actual count of the number of people who DIED from AIDS in a given year. Gary Stein >THE TRICK BEHIND THE DECREASE > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >caused a HUGE influx of otherwise HEALTHY people into the population of >"AIDS" cases. Absolutely true! Now the doctors were turned loose on a healthy population that was being told how badly it needed to take toxic drugs - hence the viremia test was concocted as a way to help convince those who didn't realize that each droplet of blood contained hundreds of man-eating virions just gnawing away at their vitals. History was made - the viral load test was the first lab test invented for the sole purpose of marketing drugs! Blackie > THE TRICK BEHIND THE DECREASE > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This may partly explain why "AIDS" mortality started to decline a couple > years later, right BEFORE the release of new drugs. You have been talking about 'AIDS deaths' in this thread Paul and no matter what you think about the change in the definition of AIDS that was made in 1993 that change had absolutely no impact on the number of DEATHS which is what has been under discussion in this thread. Gary Stein >I STATED: - > >"The decline actually began in 1992 and as late as 1997 only 17% of 'AIDS' > patients in America were on HAART." > >http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/vkgraph7.jpg The graph in vkgraph7.jpg plots half-yearly AIDS incidence statistics to the first half of 1995 and stops there -- just before the expanded access programs for the not-yet-approved protease inhibitors. The other graph you've been peddling lately, <http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/calif_deaths.jpg>, shows annual AIDS mortality statistics starting with 1995, so that we can't see whether the drop from 1995 and 1996 continues a previous trend or whether it's a new trend related to the start of HAART. One graph represents AIDS *incidence* for *the* *entire* *US*, the other represents AIDS *mortality* for *one* *state*. These quantities are not related in any simple way, so your attempt to portray the decline in calif_deaths.jpg as a continuation of the trend in vkgraph7.jpg is drastically invalid. The graph in calif_deaths.jpg represents each year's mortality as a point, and joins the points together to form a "curve". A rational and honest person would have used a bar graph. The down-sloping line from 1995 to 1996 creates the illusion of a steep decline in mortality starting early in 1995. That conclusion is not justified by the data used to create the graph. The graph was deliberately designed to deceive.  SignatureDavid Canzi >You accused me of making up my assertion about the number of people being >on HAART being very low prior to 1997. I showed that the dramatic decrease [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I am not a lier. YOU ARE. Paul is correct on all counts. The decline in AIDS mortalities began in the mid-late 1980s after a huge die-off (again more evidence of an epidemic arising from the Hep-B vaccine which was contaminated with multiple pathogens, not merely HIV - but also the Kaposi Sarcoma virus - KSV). Since that time, the causes of deaths attributed to AIDS have changed - but only in relation to the changes in toxic drug regimens. In the early 1980s, no heart attacks were killing young gay HIV+ men. In the late 1990s, the same group was dying en masse of heart attacks. Figure it out. Blackie >>You accused me of making up my assertion about the number of people being >>on HAART being very low prior to 1997. I showed that the dramatic decrease [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Blackie Frod here are the AIDS death counts from the CDC website just were in these numbers do you see a decline in AIDS deaths prior to 1996? The numbers prior to 1985 were even lower then 1985's so were is this big die off you speak off? The peak in number of deaths was in 1995 with 56,000 not in the early to mid 80's, those deaths in the early 1980's even if combined did not add up to the 1996 number. > Here's what CDC Surveillance Report 2002 shows for the >number of "AIDS" deaths (it does refer to a new definition starting in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >2001: 16,000 >2002: 15,500 Gary Stein > You accused me of making up my assertion about the number of people being > on HAART being very low prior to 1997. I showed that the dramatic decrease > in mortalities happened at least four years (1992) BEFORE HAART. No the very first year to show a decline in the number of AIDS deaths was 1996 as was shown to you in a post in this thread. So who's the one who's lying seems that it's you again Pauly. > Here's what CDC Surveillance Report 2002 shows for the >number of "AIDS" deaths [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >2001: 16,000 >2002: 15,500 Secondly here are the dates that the first PI's were approved by the FDA, "In the US, the FDA approved Saquinavir on Dec 6th, 1995, Ritonavir on Mar 1, 1996, and Indinavir on Mar 13, 1996. http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/miles95.html" Not to mention the fact that thousands of patients received all three of these drugs in 1995 as part of the clinical trials run on them and the emergency access programs that the FDA instituted that allowed critically ill AIDS patients access to drugs prior to formal approval being granted to the drug in question (this access was in addition to the clinical trials and was extensively utilized). Gary Stein Those figures do not take into account the revised definition. That is the whole point being made. Even the non adjusted figures show a major decline BEFORE Haart use was widespread. Either way you loose. >Those figures do not take into account the revised definition. That is the >whole point being made. The CDC revised the definition of AIDS, not the definition of death. The figures Gary quoted are about death: <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7qNod.2620%246m2.1946%40trnddc04> As early as Duesberg's 1992 paper, and probably earlier, dissidents have used AIDS progression statistics to argue claims about death and AIDS death statistics to argue claims about progression. That is, they have systematically argued as if AIDS progression and AIDS death were the same thing. It's not true, and has never been true, but it supports useful misinterpretations of statistics. SignatureDavid Canzi The revision's effect is quite simple. It included healty people in the 'AIDS' catagory thereby reducing mortalities. Nothing complicated. > The revision's effect is quite simple. It included healty people in the > 'AIDS' catagory thereby reducing mortalities. > > Nothing complicated. Just how does a population of (for example only not real numbers)10,000 being changed to a population of 100,000 effect the number of AIDS deaths in the total US population of millions? Here's a clue it DOESN'T......................... Gary Stein It effects the PERCENTAGE of 'AIDS' cases resulting in mortalities. IT DOES. Reduced mortalities are stated as a percentage of total cases. The actual numbers also dropped starting in 1992. Long before HAART was introduced. > It effects the PERCENTAGE of 'AIDS' cases resulting in mortalities. > > IT DOES. > > Reduced mortalities are stated as a percentage of total cases. The actual > numbers also dropped starting in 1992. Long before HAART was introduced. Simply not true Paul and you have yet to show any data that backs up either of those two arguments. The death counts are simply that a count of the actual number of people who died, not a percentage of anything other then the entire US population I repeat the number is not compared or calculated as a percentage of deaths among those with an HIV/AIDs diagnosis. It is simply a number that's all should be very simple even for you to understand. Gary Stein >Reduced mortalities are stated as a percentage of total cases. Not here: <http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/L207/L207-9.htm> Nor here: <http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1402/2002SurveillanceReport.pdf> Nor even here: <http://www.aimultimedia.com/data/calif_deaths.jpg> >The actual >numbers also dropped starting in 1992. Not according to any of the links above. SignatureDavid Canzi >The revision's effect is quite simple. It included healty people in the >'AIDS' catagory thereby reducing mortalities. <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7qNod.2620%246m2.1946%40trnddc04> The figures posted are counts of the number who have died. Body counts don't decrease when you include more of the battlefield. SignatureDavid Canzi No matter which way you look at it the issue is very simple. You CANNOT attribute an 'AIDS' declinewhich started in 1992 to medications introduced in 1996 and not widely used until 1998/99. Wriggle and squirm as much as you like this simple fact cannot be altered. >No matter which way you look at it the issue is very simple. You CANNOT >attribute an 'AIDS' declinewhich started in 1992 right--because the decline didn't start til after 1992. Like 1996. That is simply not true as the statistic clearly show and even if it was HAART could not be the reason as it was only just starting to be introduced and could not have had any effect on statistic so early. The decline started in 1992 and nothing you say can change this documented fact. > That is simply not true as the statistic clearly show and even if it was > HAART could not be the reason as it was only just starting to be > introduced and could not have had any effect on statistic so early. > > The decline started in 1992 and nothing you say can change this documented > fact. If it's documented show us that documentation. That should be real easy for you to do if what you say is true. I predict that you will not provide any evidence for your assertion and will again simply pronounce that 1992 is the magical year you pulled out of your a.s to confuse those who do not know the truth. Gary Stein >No matter which way you look at it the issue is very simple. You CANNOT >attribute an 'AIDS' declinewhich started in 1992 to medications introduced >in 1996 Post the Message-ID and quote the relevant passage of any article in which I tried to do that, weasel. There was no decline in AIDS mortality in 1992: <http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/L207/L207-9.htm> SignatureDavid Canzi That chart is smoke and mirrors' and it does NOT show the effect of the revised definition you idiot. The CDC is expert in manipulating the truth and distorting the truth to fit their agenda. >That chart is smoke and mirrors' and it does NOT show the effect of the >revised definition you idiot. The definition was changed at the start of 1993. US AIDS mortality kept growing until 1996, when it fell STEEPLY. <http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/L207/L207-9.htm> >The CDC is expert in manipulating the truth and distorting the truth to >fit their agenda. When the evidence is clearly against him, a crank's final desperate defense is to say that the evidence is a lie. When you accuse the CDC of cooking the stats to support some agenda, are you objecting because it's an agenda, or are you objecting because it's the wrong agenda? SignatureDavid Canzi "When you accuse the CDC of cooking the stats to support some agenda, are you objecting because it's an agenda, or are you objecting because it's the wrong agenda?" Both. The CDC should not be in the business of engineering social or moral change but concerned only with objective health research and treatment. No state or federal agency should be involved in promoting puritan 'moral' ethics. This is a matter for religions and personal choice NOT government intervention. Paternalism was the cornerstone of the communist dialectic and is totally at odds with democracy and a 'free country'. Once again I strongly object to both. >"When you accuse the CDC of cooking the stats to support some agenda, are >you objecting because it's an agenda, or are you objecting because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The CDC should not be in the business of engineering social or moral >change but concerned only with objective health research and treatment. And what evidence do you have that the CDC is distorting science to serve some social or moral goal? >No state or federal agency should be involved in promoting puritan 'moral' >ethics. This is a matter for religions and personal choice NOT government >intervention. Your accusation, basically, is that the CDC is altering the results of its research so that people who accept it will behave in some way that the CDC wants them to behave. It's obvious that you want people to behave some other way from the way you think mainstream AIDS science (and the CDC statistics) will cause them to behave. After 7 or 8 months of bad logic, misinterpreted statistics, concealment of relevant data, and outright lies, it's obvious that you have not chosen your theories based on evidence or logic. The only explanation that still makes sense is that you have chosen your theories based on their hoped-for effect on people's behaviour. What class of people is best known for choosing what to say based on its hoped-for effect on somebody else's behaviour? SignatureDavid Canzi Give it up you 'AIDS' fanatic. Repeating myth does NOT make them facts. >Give it up you 'AIDS' fanatic. Repeating myth does NOT make them facts. You didn't respond to this question: <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=coeb0g%24e0d%241%40rumours.uwaterloo.ca> And what evidence do you have that the CDC is distorting science to serve some social or moral goal? The only way you can hope to show that the CDC's figures and graphs are false is if you have more reliable information that contradicts them. The fact that you have been reduced to shouting unfounded accusations about the evidence being faked shows that you don't -- that your argument is not based on evidence. You can't make your case on rational grounds. This explains why you depend so heavily on stridency and repetition. See the mortality graph in figure 1, about half-way down the page: <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049322.htm> Explain how you know that the information there is wrong. SignatureDavid Canzi There own words, for a start: - "The power of such a method to force changes in cultural values is based on careful manipulation of fear. Ideally, health promotion messages should heighten an individual's perceptions of threat and his or her capacity to respond to that threat, thus modulating the level of fear...What is not yet known is how to introduce fear in the right way in a particular message intended for a particular audience. Acquiring that knowledge will require planned variations of AIDS education programs that are carefully executed and then carefully evaluated" Pages 267-8 and 373.- 1989 National Research Council/CDC Internal Report >There own words, for a start: - > >"The power of such a method to force changes in cultural values is based >on careful manipulation of fear. This first sentence was actually written by Bryan Ellison, commenting on what he saw as the "hidden agenda" behind mainstream AIDS theory. <http://www.sumeria.net/aids/agenda.html> The rest of the quote is from the report, at least Ellison says so: >Ideally, health promotion messages should >heighten an individual's perceptions of threat and his or her capacity to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >executed and then carefully evaluated" > >Pages 267-8 and 373.- 1989 National Research Council/CDC Internal Report > > In the absence of Ellison's interpretive commentary, this becomes just a discussion of a campaign against a health threat. The "agenda" is reducing a health threat. The means is changing people's behaviour. Any notion that the health threat is a means to change behaviour for some purpose other than public health is a product of the reader's imagination. Ellison's identification of the agenda is different from yours: | The report then identified one of the major targets of change - | Judeo-Christian moral values: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | strong in instances that involve the education of children and | adolescents"(p.379). So, Ellison imagines the health authorities' goal is to attack Judeo-Christian values. You, on the other hand, seem to think they're conspiring to impose their Judeo-Christian morals on you. The different agendas you and Ellison read into exactly the same text are not there in the text. They're just mirror images of your own personal agendas. SignatureDavid Canzi |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.